Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo-Anne Bright


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if WP:GNG is met in the future. Mkdw talk 19:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jo-Anne Bright

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

At first I didn't think to nominate as I saw many ref's, but after looking through the refs, I noticed they were all self-published. Then I noticed that this researcher has done nothing notable that is reliably sourced. The closest I could find after extensive searching was  Jcmcc (Talk) 00:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Did you check Google Scholar ?--TTTommy111 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to this! Ill keep it bookmarked. After looking through though, I don't see anything significant besides being a researcher in standard, non-notable studies. But thanks again. Jcmcc (Talk) 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete self promo and not notable NealeFamily (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I did find a newspaper mention of her work ], and it may merely be WP:TOOSOON, I cannot find sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment this is someone who will almost certainly be notable after their obits are published, but I'll admit I'm not seeing the coverage right now. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If its not notable yet, but might be in the future, then thats a perfect example of wp:crystal Jcmcc (Talk) 19:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not. WP:crystal is for future events. This is a case of someone who is regularly involved in an adversarial justice system so needs to keep as much as possible of their life completely confidential while that's happening. The events have already happened, but the sources haven't been written / published yet. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The spirit of WP:crystal is that we don't make articles (or edits) that "will have reliable sources in the future". My recommendation would be that the creator ask an admin to move it to their userspace and republish it once notability can be established with reliable sources.
 * More likely WP:TOOSOON covers this situation NealeFamily (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.